Conservatives, help me out.

[ColonelAngus]

If your drivers license is suspended in Virginia, you can't get a drivers license in Colorado.

Why?

 

[BrokeLoser]

In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.

Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.

Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

/----/ Police always do a background check even if they pull you over for a speeding tick to see if there are any outstanding warrants. Breaking the immigration laws are no different.

It's completely reasonable for local LE to notify Feds for crimes uncovered that fall under Federal jurisdiction.

If a County Law Enforcement officer finds a counterfeit money ring, they notify the Secret Service because that's their jurisdiction.

The county cop doesn't let the counterfeiters go and say, "Not my job!"

Is it? Take a look at the states where Marijuana was made legal. Are the cops notifying the DEA that a pot smoker is here? Are the cops arresting the pot suppliers? The locals just ignore that, and leave it to the Feds. Colorado has seen a nearly 80% drop in cultivation arrests, and the locals now only assist if the Marijuana growers are shipping it out of the state. As long as the Marijuana is sold only through registered state outlets, then the Locals are hands off. Federal law is a Federal problem.

Why would any productive, REAL American have a problem with local, state and federal authorities working together to solve such a grand scale problem? Why not solve this issue by any means necessary?
You do realize that local, state and federal agencies work together all the time...right?
"Are the cops notifying the DEA that a pot smoker is here? Are the cops arresting the pot suppliers?"

Apples and oranges...pot smokers / growers often times are acting within the legal boundaries set by the state. Unlike marijuana laws...There is no state law that supersedes federal law and permits illegal immigration. Further, I'm thinking marijuana isn't costing REAL American's $100 billion a year and constantly growing nor is it causing a massive degradation of neighborhoods, cities, states and American society.
By the way...what part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been stealing from hard working REAL Americans?

Well a little bad news to start you out. I was born in Michigan. So was my Mother. My Dad was born in North Dakota. My ancestors came from all over Northern Europe.

Moving along. So now if someone who believed in States Rights in the 1990's and still believes in it today is not a real American?

You see. It is a core belief. My beliefs don't reverse based upon who is elected. My beliefs do not change based upon any minor subject change. I did not want a national federal police force in the 1990's and I still don't want one.

I believed in the Constitution then, and now.

WOW...that's some deep, noble sounding shit...BUT, you're doing exactly what you people do....you spin and repackage shit...you cast blur over everything in an attempt to self manipulate...it's what you do.
Nobody but your precious illegals and un-American whack-jobs has suggested we shit on the constitution...there are many ways for local, state and fed authorities to tackle the epidemic together without compromising our constitution...they do it all the time. This is elementary shit bud.
Your wife originally an illegal?

 

[SavannahMann]

In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.

Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

/----/ Police always do a background check even if they pull you over for a speeding tick to see if there are any outstanding warrants. Breaking the immigration laws are no different.

It's completely reasonable for local LE to notify Feds for crimes uncovered that fall under Federal jurisdiction.

If a County Law Enforcement officer finds a counterfeit money ring, they notify the Secret Service because that's their jurisdiction.

The county cop doesn't let the counterfeiters go and say, "Not my job!"

Is it? Take a look at the states where Marijuana was made legal. Are the cops notifying the DEA that a pot smoker is here? Are the cops arresting the pot suppliers? The locals just ignore that, and leave it to the Feds. Colorado has seen a nearly 80% drop in cultivation arrests, and the locals now only assist if the Marijuana growers are shipping it out of the state. As long as the Marijuana is sold only through registered state outlets, then the Locals are hands off. Federal law is a Federal problem.

Why would any productive, REAL American have a problem with local, state and federal authorities working together to solve such a grand scale problem? Why not solve this issue by any means necessary?
You do realize that local, state and federal agencies work together all the time...right?
"Are the cops notifying the DEA that a pot smoker is here? Are the cops arresting the pot suppliers?"

Apples and oranges...pot smokers / growers often times are acting within the legal boundaries set by the state. Unlike marijuana laws...There is no state law that supersedes federal law and permits illegal immigration. Further, I'm thinking marijuana isn't costing REAL American's $100 billion a year and constantly growing nor is it causing a massive degradation of neighborhoods, cities, states and American society.
By the way...what part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been stealing from hard working REAL Americans?

Well a little bad news to start you out. I was born in Michigan. So was my Mother. My Dad was born in North Dakota. My ancestors came from all over Northern Europe.

Moving along. So now if someone who believed in States Rights in the 1990's and still believes in it today is not a real American?

You see. It is a core belief. My beliefs don't reverse based upon who is elected. My beliefs do not change based upon any minor subject change. I did not want a national federal police force in the 1990's and I still don't want one.

I believed in the Constitution then, and now.

WOW...that's some deep, noble sounding shit...BUT, you're doing exactly what you people do....you spin and repackage shit...you cast blur over everything in an attempt to self manipulate...it's what you do.
Nobody but your precious illegals and un-American whack-jobs has suggested we shit on the constitution...there are many ways for local, state and fed authorities to tackle the epidemic together without compromising our constitution...they do it all the time. This is elementary shit bud.
Your wife originally an illegal?

So your argument is to continue casting aspersions on my family. No, in fact while my Great Grandfather was an immigrant, for the wife you have to go back seven more generations.

Ok "Real American" what service did you do? I was in the Army. I was in the 82nd Airborne. What do you have to show you are a real American? Hell I was an All American since I was in the AA division.

I voted against Hillary twice in 2016. How many times did you vote against her?

States opt out of Obamacare. Does that mean those states are traitors by refusing to work with the Feds to solve healthcare?

 

[BrokeLoser]

In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.

Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

It's completely reasonable for local LE to notify Feds for crimes uncovered that fall under Federal jurisdiction.

If a County Law Enforcement officer finds a counterfeit money ring, they notify the Secret Service because that's their jurisdiction.

The county cop doesn't let the counterfeiters go and say, "Not my job!"

Is it? Take a look at the states where Marijuana was made legal. Are the cops notifying the DEA that a pot smoker is here? Are the cops arresting the pot suppliers? The locals just ignore that, and leave it to the Feds. Colorado has seen a nearly 80% drop in cultivation arrests, and the locals now only assist if the Marijuana growers are shipping it out of the state. As long as the Marijuana is sold only through registered state outlets, then the Locals are hands off. Federal law is a Federal problem.

Why would any productive, REAL American have a problem with local, state and federal authorities working together to solve such a grand scale problem? Why not solve this issue by any means necessary?
You do realize that local, state and federal agencies work together all the time...right?
"Are the cops notifying the DEA that a pot smoker is here? Are the cops arresting the pot suppliers?"

Apples and oranges...pot smokers / growers often times are acting within the legal boundaries set by the state. Unlike marijuana laws...There is no state law that supersedes federal law and permits illegal immigration. Further, I'm thinking marijuana isn't costing REAL American's $100 billion a year and constantly growing nor is it causing a massive degradation of neighborhoods, cities, states and American society.
By the way...what part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been stealing from hard working REAL Americans?

Well a little bad news to start you out. I was born in Michigan. So was my Mother. My Dad was born in North Dakota. My ancestors came from all over Northern Europe.

Moving along. So now if someone who believed in States Rights in the 1990's and still believes in it today is not a real American?

You see. It is a core belief. My beliefs don't reverse based upon who is elected. My beliefs do not change based upon any minor subject change. I did not want a national federal police force in the 1990's and I still don't want one.

I believed in the Constitution then, and now.

WOW...that's some deep, noble sounding shit...BUT, you're doing exactly what you people do....you spin and repackage shit...you cast blur over everything in an attempt to self manipulate...it's what you do.
Nobody but your precious illegals and un-American whack-jobs has suggested we shit on the constitution...there are many ways for local, state and fed authorities to tackle the epidemic together without compromising our constitution...they do it all the time. This is elementary shit bud.
Your wife originally an illegal?

So your argument is to continue casting aspersions on my family. No, in fact while my Great Grandfather was an immigrant, for the wife you have to go back seven more generations.

Ok "Real American" what service did you do? I was in the Army. I was in the 82nd Airborne. What do you have to show you are a real American? Hell I was an All American since I was in the AA division.

I voted against Hillary twice in 2016. How many times did you vote against her?

States opt out of Obamacare. Does that mean those states are traitors by refusing to work with the Feds to solve healthcare?

Sorry bud...I call bullshit when I smell it.
Why would a TRUE, REAL American sound so motivated to slow down or prevent the fight against illegal immigration knowing full-well what it's doing to this nation...PERIOD?
Your shit just don't add up bud...sorry.

 

[SavannahMann]

If your drivers license is suspended in Virginia, you can't get a drivers license in Colorado.

Why?

An agreement between the states. The states do not have to honor a request to suspend driving privileges. Let me give you an example. Let's say I am licensed in Georgia, which I am. I get a ticket in California. California sucks so I blow the ticket off. In time, California suspends my driving privileges in California. California can request that Georgia suspend my license. Georgia will almost certainly honor that request, but is not required by federal law to do so.

Take it another way. Let's say I have a permit to carry concealed in Georgia. That permit is honored in other states that have carry concealed laws. It is not honored in all states that have such laws. As an example, you can get a permit in Washington State, but they do not honor my permit from Georgia. I have to apply for a permit in Washington. Moreover I have to obey the restrictions for the state I am in. If Tennessee prohibits the carrying of a gun in a bar, and I don't know if they do, the argument that it is legal in Georgia doesn't mean shit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.

Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law.

Enforce? Holding a criminal until the Feds pick them up is enforcing Federal law?

 

[ColonelAngus]

It is illegal to enter the USA without going through the specific administrative process.

If you enter illegally, you have to go back home.

Maybe it would help out liberals if they think of illegal immigrants as conservative women at the Women's march on Washington.

Now, you want them kicked out, right?

 

[Mr.Blonde]

The debate now is if the State isn't actively assisting ICE, then they are violating the law. I want to understand how it is a States Right's issue to conduct background checks, but not a States Right issue to assist ICE.

Are you asking should local law enforcement be doing sting operations?

In that case then not if they want to. Now if you are asking should they have to hold an illegal if they come across them say during a pull over on the road and contact ICE I would say yes.

 

[SavannahMann]

In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.

Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

Is it? Take a look at the states where Marijuana was made legal. Are the cops notifying the DEA that a pot smoker is here? Are the cops arresting the pot suppliers? The locals just ignore that, and leave it to the Feds. Colorado has seen a nearly 80% drop in cultivation arrests, and the locals now only assist if the Marijuana growers are shipping it out of the state. As long as the Marijuana is sold only through registered state outlets, then the Locals are hands off. Federal law is a Federal problem.

Why would any productive, REAL American have a problem with local, state and federal authorities working together to solve such a grand scale problem? Why not solve this issue by any means necessary?
You do realize that local, state and federal agencies work together all the time...right?
"Are the cops notifying the DEA that a pot smoker is here? Are the cops arresting the pot suppliers?"

Apples and oranges...pot smokers / growers often times are acting within the legal boundaries set by the state. Unlike marijuana laws...There is no state law that supersedes federal law and permits illegal immigration. Further, I'm thinking marijuana isn't costing REAL American's $100 billion a year and constantly growing nor is it causing a massive degradation of neighborhoods, cities, states and American society.
By the way...what part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been stealing from hard working REAL Americans?

Well a little bad news to start you out. I was born in Michigan. So was my Mother. My Dad was born in North Dakota. My ancestors came from all over Northern Europe.

Moving along. So now if someone who believed in States Rights in the 1990's and still believes in it today is not a real American?

You see. It is a core belief. My beliefs don't reverse based upon who is elected. My beliefs do not change based upon any minor subject change. I did not want a national federal police force in the 1990's and I still don't want one.

I believed in the Constitution then, and now.

WOW...that's some deep, noble sounding shit...BUT, you're doing exactly what you people do....you spin and repackage shit...you cast blur over everything in an attempt to self manipulate...it's what you do.
Nobody but your precious illegals and un-American whack-jobs has suggested we shit on the constitution...there are many ways for local, state and fed authorities to tackle the epidemic together without compromising our constitution...they do it all the time. This is elementary shit bud.
Your wife originally an illegal?

So your argument is to continue casting aspersions on my family. No, in fact while my Great Grandfather was an immigrant, for the wife you have to go back seven more generations.

Ok "Real American" what service did you do? I was in the Army. I was in the 82nd Airborne. What do you have to show you are a real American? Hell I was an All American since I was in the AA division.

I voted against Hillary twice in 2016. How many times did you vote against her?

States opt out of Obamacare. Does that mean those states are traitors by refusing to work with the Feds to solve healthcare?

Sorry bud...I call bullshit when I smell it.
Why would a TRUE, REAL American sound so motivated to slow down or prevent the fight against illegal immigration knowing full-well what it's doing to this nation...PERIOD?
Your shit just don't add up bud...sorry.

Everything I have written is what I've written before. So we know that you as a "Real American" didn't serve in the military. I was at Fort Bragg for four years. If I am lying now then it is a lie I've told many times on the board. Seems silly to believe I made up the lie just to trick you. But paranoia is like that.

That's the problem in defining anything to be just like you. If someone is more, then does that make you less?

The Federal Government can enforce Federal Law all day and night and I will just shrug. But when the Feds require locals to do something, anything, that is big government intrusion. Something that conservatives normally oppose. ICE can arrest a hundred every minute. ICE can deport them as allowed by law from now to the day the sun goes dark and it would not matter to me.

But you can't be a man because you don't smoke the same cigarettes as me.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Interestingly enough. MS-13 is largely preying on illegal immigrants.

Doesn't that make MS-13 racist, according to Libs?

 

[SavannahMann]

It is illegal to enter the USA without going through the specific administrative process.

If you enter illegally, you have to go back home.

Maybe it would help out liberals if they think of illegal immigrants as conservative women at the Women's march on Washington.

Now, you want them kicked out, right?

And it is the Federal Governments job. Not the job of every cop in the country to enforce those laws. I would object to having every cop on the street check my tax returns to make sure I'm not cheating on my taxes. I'd object to the local cops conducting the Census. Would you?

 

[SavannahMann]

The debate now is if the State isn't actively assisting ICE, then they are violating the law. I want to understand how it is a States Right's issue to conduct background checks, but not a States Right issue to assist ICE.

Are you asking should local law enforcement be doing sting operations?

In that case then not if they want to. Now if you are asking should they have to hold an illegal if they come across them say during a pull over on the road and contact ICE I would say yes.

Ok. Let's take the yes. Many jails are overcrowded. Remember Lindsey Lohan doing about a third of the time and being released with time served due to overcrowding? Who do we release to hold the illegals for how long? Continuing with Los Angeles, we would have to release murderers and rapists to make room for illegals. Especially daunting when you consider the estimated millions in Los Angeles alone.

 

[Boss]

The debate now is if the State isn't actively assisting ICE, then they are violating the law. I want to understand how it is a States Right's issue to conduct background checks, but not a States Right issue to assist ICE.

State rights cannot apply when Federal constitutional powers supercede them. Immigration and naturalization are enumerated powers, background checks and marijuana regulation aren't. That is the difference.

 

[Mr.Blonde]

The debate now is if the State isn't actively assisting ICE, then they are violating the law. I want to understand how it is a States Right's issue to conduct background checks, but not a States Right issue to assist ICE.

Are you asking should local law enforcement be doing sting operations?

In that case then not if they want to. Now if you are asking should they have to hold an illegal if they come across them say during a pull over on the road and contact ICE I would say yes.

Ok. Let's take the yes. Many jails are overcrowded. Remember Lindsey Lohan doing about a third of the time and being released with time served due to overcrowding? Who do we release to hold the illegals for how long? Continuing with Los Angeles, we would have to release murderers and rapists to make room for illegals. Especially daunting when you consider the estimated millions in Los Angeles alone.

In many cases (especially in major cities) ICE would be able to pick up an illegal in detention within 48 hours (probably 24)

 

[Missouri_Mike]

In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.

Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

Like any Federal law the locals are 99% of the time the ones that run into the violation first. So it's reasonable they would notify ICE of an illegal so they can go pick them up. Same applies to your gun example. A local cop arrests a person with an illegal weapon and they refer it up the line. They certainly don't just let them go saying oh well not my problem.

My question for you is did you support Arizona enforcing immigration law more vigorously when they tried that? Does states rights go both ways?

 

[SavannahMann]

In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.

Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

Like any Federal law the locals are 99% of the time the ones that run into the violation first. So it's reasonable they would notify ICE of an illegal so they can go pick them up. Same applies to your gun example. A local cop arrests a person with an illegal weapon and they refer it up the line. They certainly don't just let them go saying oh well not my problem.

My question for you is did you support Arizona enforcing immigration law more vigorously when they tried that? Does states rights go both ways?

Yes. I always support states rights. The only thing I default to higher than that is civil rights. My default is always the constitution. States rights do not trump civil rights, but short of that, I'm always in favor of states rights.

As an example if you like. Let's say you refuse to answer questions of the police. Your rights under the fifth are clear. The Right of the state does not trump your individual right to remain silent. I would object to the state trying to compel you.

I have never argued that the Feds should lay off illegals. I've never argued that the states should. I've only argued that the states should make their own decisions, and carry out their own policies. If the State wants to help ICE, that is their choice. If the states want to tell ICE that no help will be forthcoming, again it is their choice.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.

Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

Like any Federal law the locals are 99% of the time the ones that run into the violation first. So it's reasonable they would notify ICE of an illegal so they can go pick them up. Same applies to your gun example. A local cop arrests a person with an illegal weapon and they refer it up the line. They certainly don't just let them go saying oh well not my problem.

My question for you is did you support Arizona enforcing immigration law more vigorously when they tried that? Does states rights go both ways?

Yes. I always support states rights. The only thing I default to higher than that is civil rights. My default is always the constitution. States rights do not trump civil rights, but short of that, I'm always in favor of states rights.

As an example if you like. Let's say you refuse to answer questions of the police. Your rights under the fifth are clear. The Right of the state does not trump your individual right to remain silent. I would object to the state trying to compel you.

I have never argued that the Feds should lay off illegals. I've never argued that the states should. I've only argued that the states should make their own decisions, and carry out their own policies. If the State wants to help ICE, that is their choice. If the states want to tell ICE that no help will be forthcoming, again it is their choice.

That's pretty much their choice now. But if they don't want to help, the feds should be allowed to cutoff their federal funds. It would already be the law of the land if not for leftist activist judges.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is illegal to enter the USA without going through the specific administrative process.

If you enter illegally, you have to go back home.

Maybe it would help out liberals if they think of illegal immigrants as conservative women at the Women's march on Washington.

Now, you want them kicked out, right?

And it is the Federal Governments job. Not the job of every cop in the country to enforce those laws. I would object to having every cop on the street check my tax returns to make sure I'm not cheating on my taxes. I'd object to the local cops conducting the Census. Would you?

And it is the Federal Governments job.

Local cops shouldn't catch an illegal alien and send them back to their country of origin.
I have no problem with local cops holding the illegal alien they already took into custody until the Feds can get them and send them back to their country of origin.

I would object to having every cop on the street check my tax returns to make sure I'm not cheating on my taxes.

A local cop who has an illegal alien in custody should just let them go?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The debate now is if the State isn't actively assisting ICE, then they are violating the law. I want to understand how it is a States Right's issue to conduct background checks, but not a States Right issue to assist ICE.

Are you asking should local law enforcement be doing sting operations?

In that case then not if they want to. Now if you are asking should they have to hold an illegal if they come across them say during a pull over on the road and contact ICE I would say yes.

Ok. Let's take the yes. Many jails are overcrowded. Remember Lindsey Lohan doing about a third of the time and being released with time served due to overcrowding? Who do we release to hold the illegals for how long? Continuing with Los Angeles, we would have to release murderers and rapists to make room for illegals. Especially daunting when you consider the estimated millions in Los Angeles alone.

Ok. Let's take the yes. Many jails are overcrowded.

How much of the overcrowding is due to illegal alien felons? LOL!

Continuing with Los Angeles, we would have to release murderers and rapists to make room for illegals.

Imagine the reduced murders and rapes if we deported illegal aliens before they committed serious crimes.

 

[Cellblock2429]

In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.

Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

/----/ Here ya go Spanky. You must be proud of your agenda:
Portland 'Sanctuary' Releases Felony Illegal -- Who Then Rapes Elderly Woman...

20 Previous Deportations...